NACo Legal Advocacy: Jouppi v. Alaska
Key Takeaways
On July 20, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear Jouppi v. Alaska (25-246), a case that could affect how state and local governments impose and defend fines and property forfeitures under the Eighth Amendment's Excessive Fines Clause.
The Eighth Amendment prohibits fines and forfeitures that are grossly disproportional to the gravity of an offense. The Court will decide how courts should measure that gravity, either by looking broadly at the category of conduct a law targets or only at the specific wrongdoing in the case before them. The Court's decisions could have implications for counties that use penalties not only to address harm caused by an individual violation, but also to deter conduct that creates broader public safety risks.
Background
The case stems from Alaska's restrictions on importing alcohol into communities that have voted to prohibit it. In 2012, pilot Kenneth Jouppi was preparing to fly a passenger to Beaver, Alaska, when state troopers found beer aboard his aircraft.
Jouppi was convicted of misdemeanor alcohol importation and received a $1,500 fine. Alaska law also required a mandatory forfeiture of the aircraft used in the offense, which was valued at approximately $95,000.
The Alaska Supreme Court upheld the forfeiture in 2025. In reaching its decision, the court assumed in Jouppi's favor that he knew about only a six-pack of beer and had engaged in no related misconduct. The court nevertheless concluded that the forfeiture was not constitutionally excessive, relying in part on the Alaska legislature's broader findings about the harms associated with alcohol importation into communities that prohibit it.
Jouppi argues that courts should instead focus on the specific defendant's conduct and culpability when determining whether a penalty is excessive.
Under existing precedent, a fine violates the Excessive Fines Clause when it is "grossly disproportional" to the gravity of the underlying offense. Courts have disagreed, however, about how that gravity should be measured.
Some judgments focus primarily on what the individual defendant actually did and the harm caused by that conduct. Alaska's approach allows courts to place greater weight on the legislature's assessment of the broader harms associated with the category of conduct being punished to deter behavior that endangers public safety.
The Court will now decide whether courts may evaluate an offense at that broader level or must focus on the specific defendant's wrongdoing.
County Nexus
Although no county is involved in the case, the constitutional standard adopted by the Supreme Court will apply to fines and forfeitures imposed by local governments.
Counties use civil penalties and, in some circumstances, forfeitures to enforce local laws involving issues such as code violations, nuisance abatement and public safety. Those penalties may account for risks that are difficult to measure through the harm caused by a single violation.
For example, parking restrictions along wildfire evacuation routes may be designed around the potential consequences of blocked emergency access that could jeopardize thousands of residents in the event of an evacuation, even if a particular illegally parked vehicle never actually delays an emergency response. Other county penalty schedules similarly account for the broader risks created by regulated conduct rather than waiting for those risks to result in measurable harm.
A ruling requiring courts to focus heavily on each violator's individual conduct could require counties to develop more case-specific evidence when defending penalties and forfeitures against constitutional challenges. That could increase the complexity and cost of enforcement proceedings.
At the same time, the case illustrates the competing concern underlying the Excessive Fines Clause. Giving governments broad authority to rely on categorical findings about an offense can result in significant penalties even when an individual's particular conduct is comparatively limited.
How courts evaluate proportionality on whether a fine or forfeiture is excessive could have major impacts on local elected authority when adopting local ordinances around public safety.
NACo Advocacy
NACo will be joining the Local Government Legal Center (LGLC) in filing an amicus brief to educate the Court on how counties use civil penalties and forfeitures to deter conduct that creates broad public safety risks, emphasizing that courts should be able to weigh the broader harms a penalty is designed to prevent.
Next Steps
The Court granted review on July 20. As of August 12, a merits briefing schedule and oral argument date have not yet been posted.
Related News
NACo Legal Advocacy: St. Mary’s Catholic Parish v. Roy
The U.S. Supreme Court is deciding how easily a challenger can move a neutral local rule out of deferential review and into the most demanding standard in Constitutional law.
NACo Legal Advocacy: Suncor Energy v. Boulder County
NACo joined a Supreme Court amicus brief arguing that federal law should not prevent counties from pursuing state-law claims to recover costs associated with local harms.
NACo Legal Advocacy: Grand v. City University Heights
The U.S. Supreme Court will consider whether federal courts may hear certain religious liberty challenges to local zoning decisions before the local land use process reaches a final decision.
Featured Initiative
Supreme Court Advocacy Hub
